Class Action Fairness Act

News & Analysis as of

Expansion of Class Allows Second Removal Under Class Action Fairness Act, According to Ninth Circuit

It is important to remember that when a putative class action is remanded to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), that may not be the end of the jurisdictional battle. ...more

Creative Construction: The Ninth Circuit Relaxes Removal Statute’s Timeliness Test in Class Action Fairness Act Cases

In Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 14-35943 and 15-35113, 2015 WL 1447217 (Apr. 1, 2015 9th Cir.), a Ninth Circuit panel held that cases subject to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) become “removable” only when...more

Ninth Circuit Holds Defendant Can Remove Within 30-Days After CAFA Grounds Are Ascertained, Even Where Complaint Provided Basis...

A Ninth Circuit panel has held that a defendant may remove a case to federal court within 30 days after the CAFA ground for removal can first be ascertained, even where plaintiff’s complaint, filed years earlier, provided a...more

Ninth Circuit Holds That State Court’s Class Certification Order Creates New Occasion for CAFA Removal

The Ninth Circuit held that a state court’s certification order, under which CAFA’s amount in controversy would be met, created a new basis for defendant to remove the case to federal court. The plaintiff had filed a putative...more

Plaintiff Gets Burned By Article III in Sunblock Class Action

Can a plaintiff sue in federal court for consumer fraud when he never purchased and never used the product? This is not a trick question, and the obvious answer is also the correct answer. No, he can’t. But the point...more

Class Certification Provides a Second Bite at the Proverbial Apple for Removing Case to Federal Court

In Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Filed April 1, 2015, No. 15-55176) the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held the certification of a class triggers a new opportunity for a defendant to remove the matter to...more

The Class Action Chronicle - Spring 2015

In This Issue: - Nexium and the Problems of Overbroad Class Actions - Class Certification Decisions: ..Decisions Granting Motions to Strike/Dismiss Class Claims ..Decisions Denying Motions to Strike/Dismiss...more

Employer Met Its Burden Of Proving At Least $5 Million Amount In Controversy For CAFA Removal

In this putative class action, plaintiffs alleged that Knight Transportation had misclassified them as independent contractors when in fact they were employees who were not reimbursed their lease-related and fuel costs as...more

California Employment Law Notes - March 2015

Employee Who Was Working Elsewhere During Medical Leave Of Absence Was Properly Terminated - Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 (Cal. S. Ct. 2015). Avery Richey worked for Power Toyota Cerritos,...more

District Court for the District of Columbia Finds CAFA Jurisdiction Exists; Denies Remand For Lack of Local Controversy

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to remand an action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), where the plaintiff failed to show CAFA’s local controversy exception...more

Finding the Earliest and Least Expensive Exit From Financial Services Class Actions

Effectively responding to class litigation doesn’t necessarily mean simply preparing an answer or perfunctory motion to dismiss, diving headlong into class discovery, investing in full-fledged combat on the merits of the...more

To Remove or Not To Remove?

When the Class Action Fairness Act was passed ten years ago, many businesses breathed a collective sigh of relief. No longer would the plaintiffs' bar be able to keep their cases in certain magnet jurisdictions (a/k/a...more

High Court Finds Plausible Showing of Amount in Controversy Sufficient to Remove Action

In a decision that may make it somewhat easier for defendants to remove putative class actions from state to federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in such cases do not need to offer evidence in their...more

2014 SCOTUS Term: Important Developments in the Class-Action Arena

In This Issue: - Those Who Provide Investment Advice on Unsecured Securities Are Subject to Class Actions - A “Mass Action” Under the Class Action Fairness Act Requires at Least 100 Individual...more

Insurance Balance Billing Class Fails Rule 23’s Requirements

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Arkansas state court against his automobile insurer for alleged failure to pay the full amount it was contractually required to pay for his medical bills following a car accident. ...more

"2014-15 Supreme Court Highlights"

Approaching the midpoint of its 2014-15 term, the Supreme Court has added to its docket several cases with potentially wide-reaching implications for a range of important policy and business issues. The Court accepted for...more

CAFA Removal Jurisdiction: Using a Plaintiff’s Complaint Against It

Most cases involving the existence of removal jurisdiction under CAFA involve the $5 million amount in controversy. In a recent Third Circuit opinion, determining whether or not the putative class had the requisite 100...more

Ninth Circuit Issues Companion Cases Addressing Evidence Required To Show That The Amount In Controversy Requirement Has Been Met...

Through a pair of opinions issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit attempted to clarify the evidence required for a defendant to meet its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA’s $5 million threshold...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Removal Pleading Standard

The US Supreme Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal to federal court. Only a plausible allegation is...more

Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order

Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more

Making a Record in Support of CAFA Removal to Federal Court

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Dudley v. Eli Lilly and Co., 2014 WL 7360016 (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2014), highlights the risk of waiving (or, at a minimum, postponing) an otherwise proper removal by not creating a proper...more

Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA

Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a...more

The Ten Most Significant Class Action Cases of 2014

Year-end lists are funny things. They take a sort-of arbitrary starting and stopping point, and then they cram a bunch of prejudices into a (usually) arbitrary number of items. And then people take them kind of seriously....more

California District Court Finds that CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement was Satisfied; Denies Motion to Remand

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages and overtime satisfied CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement. ...more

Supreme Court Establishes New Standards: Removal Pleadings Now Less Burdensome For State Court Suits

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more

210 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 9

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×